Ensuring Material Consistency in Supervised Release Conditions under Rogers: United States v. Aughenbaugh

Introduction

In United States v. Ryan Aughenbaugh, decided May 7, 2025, the Fourth Circuit addressed two primary issues arising from Aughenbaugh’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Following his guilty plea in the Middle District of North Carolina and a 115-month sentence, Aughenbaugh challenged (1) a six-level sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3A1.2(c)(1) for assaulting law enforcement, and (2) an alleged Rogers error concerning a special supervised-release condition requiring him to disclose his substance abuse history to medical professionals. The court’s unpublished per curiam opinion affirms both the enhancement and the supervised-release condition, clarifying how Rogers errors are identified and when minor discrepancies between oral pronouncement and written judgment are permissible.

Summary of the Judgment

Sentencing Enhancement (§ 3A1.2(c)(1)) The Fourth Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s determination that Aughenbaugh physically resisted officers and attempted to retrieve a loaded firearm, knowing they were law enforcement, thereby justifying the six-level enhancement.
Rogers Error Challenge Although the written judgment added verification language by a probation officer to the disclosure condition, the Court held this was a permissible clarification, not a new obligation. Aughenbaugh did not dispute the Government’s explanation, so no reversible Rogers error occurred.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Framework for counsel to declare an appeal frivolous and for a defendant’s opportunity to file a pro se brief.
United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020): Requires oral pronouncement of discretionary supervised-release conditions; error arises when new conditions appear only in the written judgment.
United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021): Clarifies that Rogers error involves first-time appearance of a condition in the written judgment.
United States v. Mathis, 103 F.4th 193 (4th Cir. 2024): Permits written clarifications that do not impose additional obligations, provided the Government explains the discrepancy and the defendant does not object.
United States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th 185 (4th Cir. 2022): Confirms de novo review of oral-written consistency and recognizes exceptions for permissible clarifications.

Legal Reasoning

1. Sentencing Enhancement: The court reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Under § 3A1.2(c)(1), the Government must prove by a preponderance that the defendant knowingly assaulted an officer, creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. Video evidence and the district court’s plausible findings satisfied this standard.

2. Rogers Error: Rogers demands oral pronouncement of all discretionary supervised-release conditions. Under Mathis and Cisson, minor written clarifications that explain enforcement and do not create new obligations are allowed if the Government offers an explanation and the defendant does not object. Here, the verification language in the written judgment merely clarified the condition’s enforceability; Aughenbaugh did not contest it.

Impact

Reinforces the Fourth Circuit’s allowance for written clarifications that align with oral pronouncements and do not impose new duties.
Places the burden on appellants to specifically identify and dispute discrepancies to preserve Rogers claims.
Guides courts and practitioners on distinguishing harmless clarifications from impermissible additions in supervised-release judgments.
Affirms the rigorous application of clear-error review where video and factual records support sentencing enhancements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rogers Error: Occurs when a court imposes a supervised-release condition in the written judgment without orally pronouncing it, potentially creating obligations unknown to the defendant.
Material Consistency: A test to determine whether differences between oral pronouncement and written judgment alter the defendant’s obligations. Non-material clarifications that explain enforcement are permissible.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard in sentencing enhancements, requiring that a fact be more likely than not true.
Clear Error Standard: Appellate review of factual findings, demanding a firm conviction of mistake before reversal.

Conclusion

United States v. Aughenbaugh affirms the district court’s sentencing enhancement and supervised-release conditions, while refining Fourth Circuit precedent on Rogers errors. The decision draws a clear line between impermissible additions to written judgments and permissible clarifications that aid enforceability without imposing new obligations. This ruling will guide future litigants and courts in evaluating oral-written consistency, ensuring both fair notice to defendants and the integrity of supervised-release proceedings.